"Frowned Upon"

by Thomas A. Droleskey

Professional race-baiters such as Alfred Sharpton, Jesse Louis Jackson, Barack Hussein Obama and Eric Holder do not have much to say when human beings who have a different skin color than they do become the victims of violent bodily assault, up to and including cold-blooded murder. No, these charlatans and demagogues, each of whom maintain their "good standing" in the propaganda machine of the false opposite of the naturalist "left" that can be referred to as the "mainstream media," keep studiously silent in the face of the murder of those they do not consider to be "their own people."

Remember, the racialist protector of the crimes of the "rich" (meaning, of course, Marc Rich, the fugitive financier whose former wife, Denise Rich, was a major contributor to the campaign coffers of one William Jefferson Blythe Clinton and connived with Holder to arrange a presidential pardon from the president who copped a plea for himself from Independent Counsel Robert Ray on Friday, January 19, 2001, the day before he left the White House) and the powerful who has covered up such scandals as Fast and Furious, Benghazi and the Internal Revenue Service's targeting of "conservative" and "constitutionalist" groups applying for 501 (c) (3) tax-exempt status and has authorized the spying on Fox News reporter James Rosen, Eric Holder once defended his refusal to prosecute members of the "New Black Panther Party" for voter intimidation outside of a polling place in the City of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, by referring to "my people":

Attorney General Eric Holder said Tuesday that voter intimidation by
members of the New Black Panther Party was different than the historic
intimidation experienced by “my people.”

The New Black Panther Party had uniformed members stationed outside
of Philadelphia polling stations in November 2008 shouting racial
insults. One carried a nightstick.

Holder responded to statements made by Texas Republican Rep. John
Culberson at a House Appropriations subcommittee hearing. Culberson
said, “There’s clearly overwhelming evidence that your Department of
Justice refuses to protect the rights of anybody other than
African-Americans to vote.”

Holder said, “When you compare what people endured in the South in
the ’60s to try to get the right to vote for African Americans, to
compare what people subjected to that with what happened in
Philadelphia… I think does a great disservice to people who put their
lives on the line for my people.”

Civil Rights Commission Chairman Gerald A. Reynolds wrote, “Because
the Department withheld relevant documents and relevant officials’ and
supervisors’ witness testimony, the Commission was limited in its
ability to complete a final report.”

“Based upon the incomplete, incorrect and changing explanations
offered by the Department for its actions, the Commission decided to
examine whether the U.S. Department of Justice enforced voting rights in
a race-neutral manner when it reversed course in the New Black Panther
Party case,” Reynolds wrote in an introductory letter for the report.

The Justice Department had dropped nearly all charges against defendants from the New Black Panther Party.

“The Department refused to comply with certain Commission requests
for information concerning DOJ’s enforcement actions, and it instructed
its employees not to comply with the Commission’s subpoenas for
testimony,” Reynolds wrote.

The New Black Panther Party has been denounced by leaders of original
Black Panther Party as a bastardized, racist version of the 60s’ group.

Reacting to the new group, co-founder of the original Black Panthers, Bobby Seale, said, “The Black Panther Party were not revenge nationalists. My
organization was all power to all the people whether you’re black,
white, blue, green, yellow, or polka dot.”

“The Party operated on love for black people, not hatred of white
people,” said the foundation dedicated to the memory of the late Huey Newton.

Megan Mitchell, communications director for Culberson, told The Daily
Caller, “the congressman believes that the attorney general needs to be
the attorney general of all Americans.” (Eric Holder and "My People"; see also the scathing report of the U. S. Civil Rights Commission on this unquestioned exercise
preferential treatment being accorded to human beings solely because of
the color of their skin.)

"My people."

"My people."

What a racialist.

Voter intimidation of white Americans cannot be
compared to voter intimidation of black of Americans because to do so
would be to a " great disservice to people who put their
lives on the line for my people"?

Prosecutors should go easy in cases of "black on
white" crime and seek maximum penalties in cases of "white on black"
crime? An endless succession of "affirmative action" and other
preferential programs to "level the playing field" in the acquisition,
retention and increase of civil power, economic clout and social
prestige. Yes, this is the vision and the goal of the Obamas and Eric
Holder, who says that "affirmative action" has only just begun to remedy
the injustices of the past. (See, for example, Eric Holder's Revenge.)

It was Eric Holder, acting at the behest of Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, who dispatched Federal employees in his own Department of Justice to engage in Alinsky-style "community organizing" efforts to incite "his people" into protesting the fact that George Zimmerman had not been arrested by the City of Sanford, Florida, Police Department following the shooting death of Trayvon Martin on February 26, 2012, and who is "investigating" whether to bring Federal "civil rights" violation charges against Zimmerman following the latter's acquittal by a jury in Florida on July 14, 2013, the Feast of Saint Bonaventure.

Will Eric Holder's criminal organization known as the Department of Justice investigate the three young boys, two of whom are black and one is white, who have been arrested for the cowardly, cold-blooded murder of Australian college student-athlete Chris Lane on Friday, August 16, 2013, the Feast of Joachim, considering the fact that one of them "tweeted" a message of racial hatred of whites and expressed a desire for them to be killed?

Do not hold your breath.

Will Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro say that if he had a son that he would like Chris Lane?

Will that notorious agitator and inciter of riots named Alfred Sharpton go to Oklahoma to organize protests of Chris Lane's murder?

Well, this is what White House deputy press spokesflack Josh Earnest said when questioned about Chris Lane's murder:

Ed Henry: In Oklahoma this 22 Year-old Australian who goes out on a
jog and these young men who apparently told the police they were bored
and they thought it would be fun to kill him.

Josh Earnest: Well, just that this sounds like a pretty tragic case. I
wouldn’t want to get ahead of the legal process here. The president
himself has spoken very eloquently about the violence in our
communities.

- See more at:
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2013/08/white-house-responds-to-aussie-chris-lanes-murder-wouldnt-want-to-get-ahead-of-the-legal-process-here/#sthash.eoLaVxnY.dpuf

That's all that the demagogues who reside and work there did after the death of Trayvon Martin, and it is what they are still doing following George Zimmerman's acquittal of second-degree murder charges (and the jury also rejected manslaughter in this case).

Despite all of the propaganda, George Zimmerman did not target Travyon Martin because he was black. Zimmerman told police that he could not make out the hooded youngster's face. George Zimmerman had not history of racism. He was tutoring minority students. And while it is arguably the case that he should have followed police instructions to wait in his car after telephoning 911 rather to follow Martin, there have been a few times when I followed youngsters trespassing in a mobile home community and did follow them to see where they were going. Mind you, we own no firearms. I was just curious as to where these intruders were headed. The last time this happened, however, I said to myself,. "Wait, Droleskey, you idiot! These guys could be armed with knives or guns. And they could probably me up pretty good if I said 'boo' to them!"

Whether George Zimmerman acted prudently or not is an entirely different question from whether he was racially motivated. He was not. At least one of the murderers of Chris Lane might have been so motivated as he has left a paper trail of messages filled with hate for whites and a desire to kill them.

Thus it is for reigning caesar and his co-conspirators in Marxist social-engineering and propagation of moral evil, here is a summary of the story with which spokesflack Josh Earnest professed five days ago to be unfamiliar:

Prosecutors on Tuesday charged two teenagers accused of gunning down an Australian student in Oklahoma for the “fun of it” with first-degree murder, and a third teen with being an accessory.

Officials say 22-year-old Christopher Lane, who was visiting the U.S. on a baseball scholarship at East Central University, was jogging along a road in Duncan, Okla., after visiting his girlfriend on Friday when he was shot in the back, allegedly by the teens.

Terri Moore from the Stephens County Courthouse says 16-year-old Chancey Allen Luna and 15-year-old James Francis Edwards Jr. were charged as adults with first-degree murder. Both are being held without bond.

Bond was set at $1 million for 17-year-old Michael Jones, who allegedly drove the vehicle carrying the other suspects. He was charged with the use of a vehicle in the discharge of a weapon and accessory to murder after the fact. Jones is considered a youthful offender but will be tried in adult court.

Prosecutor Jason Hicks called the boys "thugs" in court, saying Luna was sitting in the rear seat of a car when he pulled the trigger on a .22 caliber revolver and shot Lane once in the back. Hicks said Jones was driving the vehicle and Edwards was in the passenger seat.

Edwards has had run-ins with the law previously and had been in court Friday, the day of the killing, to sign documents related to his juvenile probation.

"I believe this man is a threat to the community and should not be let out," Hicks said as he requested no bond for Edwards. "He thinks it's all a joke."

The 17-year-old wept in court after he tried to speak and was cut off by the judge.

"I'm appalled," Hicks said after the hearing. "This is not supposed to happen in this community."

Police Chief Dan Ford said Lane appeared to have been chosen at random, saying in a variety of media interviews since Friday's killing that one suspect told officers that he and other boys were bored and that they followed Lane and killed him for "the fun of it."

A woman tried CPR and paramedics arrived on scene, but Lane was pronounced dead an hour later.

"He went by a residence where these three boys were, they picked him as a target, they went out and got in a vehicle and followed him," Ford told the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, according to AFP.

"[They] came up from behind and basically shot him in the back with a small caliber weapon, then sped away," Ford added.

Richard Rhodes, a builder who discovered Lane lying face down, said he was targeted with a .22 caliber revolver.

Police tracked the teens down using surveillance video from a business that is near the shooting scene, KOCO reports.

On one of the alleged killer's Facebook pages, investigators found the message: "Bang. Two drops in two hours," Sky News reports.

"I think they were on a killing spree. We would have had more bodies that night if we didn't get them,” Ford said in an interview with the Australian Associated Press.

Peter Lane told Australian media there was no explanation for his son's death.

"It is heartless and to try to understand it is a short way to insanity," he said.

The mother of the 16-year-old accused in the killing said her son and his two friends were part of a “wannabe gang,” but insisted that he is not a killer, KOCO reports.

The father of the 15-year-old also denied his son had a role in Lane’s death, but said the boy had run-ins with the law before, News.com.au reports.

On Tuesday, Lane's girlfriend, Sarah Harper, laid a wooden cross at a memorial that formed along the road where Duncan was killed.

"We just thought we'd leave it," Harper said. "This is his final spot."

Harper said she doesn't know who started the memorial, but it means a lot.

East Central University is setting up a fund so Lane’s parents, who are still in Australia, can come to Oklahoma.

The school is in Ada, about 85 miles west of Duncan. Lane started 14 games at catcher last year and was entering his senior year.

"Chris was a well-liked young man here on campus. His teammates thought a lot of him. Seemed to be a bright, promising student," Dr. Jeff Williams, the athletic director at East Central University, told KOCO.

Australia's Herald Sun newspaper said Lane's former team, Essendon Baseball Club, would turn its Sunday game against the University of Melbourne into a tribute to Lane to raise money for the family. Roses and a baseball were placed on the home plate on Monday with the message, "A wonderful young man taken too soon. Why?" (Teens charged after allegedly killing Australian student in Oklahoma.)

It is sad that people have to ask why innocent human beings are targeted for execution while walking on once very safe neighborhood streets as innocent human beings are executed by chemical and surgical means in their mothers' wombs every day in the United States of America and around the world, including in Australia, where the execution of innocent children is permitted on a state-by-state basis in varying degrees and circumstances.

How in the world is it possible to protect innocent human beings after birth when the murder of innocent babies is permitted under cover of the civil law and when innocent human beings are killed in hospitals and hospices and nursing homes on a daily basis under various mythological pretenses ("brain death," "compassionate end-of-life care" and "mercy")?

Moreover, how in the world is it possible to protect the innocent life of God's rational creatures when He is blasphemed on a daily basis in the name of "freedom of speech" and "freedom of the press" and "freedom of religion" under cover of the civil law and has now become a standard feature of daily discourse that permeates the entirety of popular culture?

How is it possible to protect the legitimate rights of men when the sacred rights of the Social Reign of Christ the King have been overthrow the forces of Protestantism and are now mocked and spat upon by the forces of Judeo-Masonry in the world?

The world has heard enough of the so-called "rights of man." Let it hear something of the rights of God.
That the time is suitable is proved by the very general revival of
religious feeling already referred to, and especially that devotion
towards Our Saviour of which there are so many indications, and which,
please God, we shall hand on to the New Century as a pledge of happier
times to come. But as this consummation cannot be hoped for except by
the aid of divine grace, let us strive in prayer, with united heart and
voice, to incline Almighty God unto mercy, that He would not suffer
those to perish whom He had redeemed by His Blood. May He look down in
mercy upon this world, which has indeed sinned much, but which has also
suffered much in expiation! And, embracing in His loving-kindness all
races and classes of mankind, may He remember His own words: "I, if I be
lifted up from the earth, will draw all things to Myself" (John xii.,
32). (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Father Denis Fahey explained Judeo-Masonry is founded on the divini zing of man, a mere contingent being who did not create himself and whose mortal body is destined for the corruption of the grave under the General Resurrection on the Last Day at the General Judgment of the living and the dead, a diabolical falsehood that winds up destroying men and their nations under a system of laws that repugnant to God and thus to their own temporal and eternal good:

By the grace of the Headship of the Mystical Body, our Lord Jesus Christ
is both Priest and King of redeemed mankind and, as such, exercises a
twofold influence upon us. Firstly, as a Priest, He communicates to us
the supernatural life of grace by which we, while ever remaining
distinct from God, can enter into the vision and love of the Blessed
Trinity. We can thus become one with God, not, of course, in the order
of substance or being, but in the order of operation, of the immaterial
union of vision and love. The Divine Nature is the principle of the
Divine Vision and Love, and by grace we are ‘made partakers of the
Divine Nature.’ This pure Catholic doctrine is infinitely
removed from Masonic pantheism. Secondly, as King, our Lord exercises an
exterior influence on us by His government of us. As King, He guides
and directs us socially and individually, in order to dispose all things
for the reception of the Supernatural Life which He, as Priest, confers.

Society had been organized in the thirteenth century and even down to the sixteenth, under the banner of Christ the King. Thus,
in spite of deficiencies and imperfections, man’s divinization, through
the Life that comes from the sacred Humanity of Jesus, was socially
favoured. Modern society, under the influence of Satan, was to be
organized on the opposite principle, namely, that human nature is of
itself divine, that man is God, and, therefore, subject to nobody.
Accordingly, when the favourable moment had arrived, the Masonic
divnization of human nature found its expression in the Declaration of
the Rights of Man in 1789. The French Revolution
ushered in the struggle for the complete organization of the world
around the new divinity–Humanity. In God’s plan, the whole organization
of a country is meant to aid the development of a country is meant to
aid the development of the true personality of the citizens through the
Mystical Body of Christ. Accordingly, the achievement of true liberty
for a country means the removal of obstacles to the organized social
acceptance of the Divine Plan. Every revolution since 1789 tends, on the
contrary, to the rejection of that plan, and therefore to the
enthronement of man in the place of God. The freedom at which the spirit
of the revolution aims is that absolute independence which refuses
submission to any and every order. It is the spirit breathed by the
temptation of the serpent: ‘For God doth know that in what day soever
you shall eat thereof, your eyes shall be opened; and you shall be as
gods, knowing good and evil.’ Man decided then that he would himself lay
down the order of good and evil in the place of God; then and now it is
the same attitude. (Father Denis Fahey, The Mystical Body of Christ in the Modern World, p. 27.)

The world of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry has unleashed demonic forces that have, aided and abetted, of course, by the counterfeit church of conciliarism's "reconciliation" with them, made possible the return of barbarism and tribalism wherein human people identify themselves solely on the basis of race and/or ethnicity while refusing to see in themselves or others the Divine impress and being mostly if not totally ignorant of the simple fact that the very Precious Blood of the Divine Redeemer, Christ the King was shed to redeem them, and that it is this fact that is unite men of all races, ethnicities and nationalities.

Professional race-baiters want nothing to do with Catholic truth. It is to their utter advantage to advertise themselves as "champions of the downtrodden" when, of course, they are instruments of assuring a new slavery of "their people" and, quite indeed, of us all to the caesars of Modernity and their corporate bankrollers in the world of commerce and finance, long, long a "sacred" preserve of Judeo-Masonry as they exact what they see is "justice," although is actually racially-motivated vengeance, for injustices, both real and imagined, of the past.

Thus it is that professional race-baiters and racialists can never admit that harm done to "other" people by one of "their" own might have been racially motivated as they exclude this as even within the realm possibility, thereby communicating the belief that "their" people are incapable of any kind of hatred against others, no less than which might be racially motivated.

Consider the incredible reaction of the fake, phony, fraud "reverend" Jesse Louis Jackson to the murder of Australian collegiate baseball player Chris Lane in Oklahoma:

Civil rights leader Jesse Jackson, who has been recently criticized for remaining silent on racially-charged crimes in which whites were the victims, said the shooting of a white jogger in Oklahoma by three young men is "frowned upon."

The oddly tepid remark came in a tweet, and was followed by a lengthier statement in which Jackson pleaded for an end to violence in general.

"Praying for the family of Chris Lane. This senseless violence is frowned upon and the justice system must prevail," Jackson tweeted.

Lane was fatally shot last Friday as he went for a run in in the town of Duncan, which is about 30 miles southwest of Oklahoma City. He was on a baseball scholarship at East Central University in Ada, Okla., and had been visiting his girlfriend when he was shot in the back and killed.

One Twitter response to Jackson's tweet said, "But I guess you aren't 'Outraged' and won't be marching over it huh?"

The Wall Street Journal ran an editorial Thursday calling Lane's killing as 'troubling' as that of Martin, but noted the general silence from Jackson, Rev. Al Sharpton and even the White House on the matter.

To be sure, police in Oklahoma call the shooting random. One suspect allegedly told police that he and other boys were bored and that they followed Lane and killed him for "the fun of it." Two of the suspects appear to be black.

Race was not mentioned by police but a recent report from The Daily Caller pointed out that one of the suspects had posted racist tweets in the past, including, “90% of white ppl are nasty. #HATE THEM.”

Jackson has been criticized for comments he made during the Zimmerman trial. He called Florida an ‘apartheid’ state and compared Martin’s killing to civil rights clashes in Selma, Ala.

Jackson, in an interview with The Associated Press, defended his remarks. He cited the state's voter laws and incarceration rates of blacks versus the general population as examples of "apartheid like conditions."

A phone call and email from FoxNews.com to Jackson was not immediately returned. Jackson has also been recently criticized for not speaking publicly of the brutal beating aboard a school bus caught on cellphone and surveillance video. He later mentioned the school bus attack on a Facebook post about Oklahoma killing.

"The recent incidents of violence in America most notably the murder of Christopher Lane an aspiring student athlete from Australia in Oklahoma and the attack of a student on a school bus in Florida once again calls each of us to a collectively resist all forms of violence in our society," the post said. (Father of Sentenced Former Congressman criticized over ‘frowned upon’ tweet.)

Those such as Barack Hussein Obama/Barry Soetoro, Alfred Sharpton, Jesse Louis Jackson and Eric Holder who support and promote the killing of the innocent preborn by chemical and surgical means have no standing to talk about resisting "all forms of violence" as they have the blood of the innocent dripping on their hands and thus make more possible deaths such as Chris Lane's, who may have been targeted and, it appears, was killed for the "fun of it" by hoodlums who were "bored" despite a proliferation of gadgets and gizmos with which human beings waste their precious time that they have been by the Most Blessed Trinity to give Him honor and glory through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary.

Jesse Louis Jackson never has understood anything about the Catholic Faith. He did, however, once recognized the nexus between the killing of the innocent preborn and violence against those who make it out of the womb at birth safely:

The question of "life" is The Question of the 20th century. Race
and poverty are dimensions of the life question, but discussions about
abortion have brought the issue into focus in a much sharper way. How we
will respect and understand the nature of life itself is the over-riding
moral issue, not of the Black race, but of the human race.

The question of abortion confronts me in several different ways. First,
although I do not profess to be a biologist, I have studied biology and
know something about life from the point of view of the natural sciences.
Second, I am a minister of the Gospel and therefore, feel that abortion
has a religious and moral dimension that I must consider.

Third, I was born out of wedlock (and against the advice that my mother
received from her doctor) and therefore abortion is a personal issue for
me. From my perspective, human life is the highest good, the summum
bonum . Human life itself is the highest human good and God is the
supreme good because He is the giver of life. That is my philosophy. Everything
I do proceeds from that religious and philosophical premise.

Life is the highest good and therefore you fight for life, using means
consistent with that end. Life is the highest human good not on its own
naturalistic merits, but because life is supernatural, a gift from God.
Therefore, life is the highest human good because life is sacred. Biologically
speaking, thousands of male sperms are ejaculated into the female reproductive
tract during sexual intercourse, but only once in a while do the egg and
sperm bring about fertilization. Some call that connection accidental,
but I choose to call it providential. It takes three to make a baby: a
man, a woman and the Holy Spirit.

I believe in family planning. I do not believe that families ought to
have children, as some people did where I was growing up, by the dozens.
I believe in methods of contraception -- prophylactics, pills, rhythm,
etc. I believe in sex education. We ought to teach' it in the home, the
school, the church, and on the television. I think that if people are properly
educated sexually they will appreciate the act and know its ultimate function,
purpose and significance.

In the abortion debate one of the crucial questions is when does life begin.
Anything growing is living. Therefore human life begins when the sperm
and egg join and drop into the fallopian tube and the pulsation of life
take place. From that point, life may be described differently (as an egg,
embryo, fetus, baby, child, teenager, adult), but the essence is the same.
The name has changed but the game remains the same.

Human beings cannot give or create life by themselves, it is really
a gift from God. Therefore, one does not have the right to take away (through
abortion) that which he does not have the ability to give.

Some argue, suppose the woman does not. want to have the baby. They
say the very fact that she does not want the baby means that the psychological
damage to the child is reason enough to abort the baby'. I disagree. The
solution to that problem is not to kill the innocent baby, but to deal
with her values and her attitude toward life that have allowed
her not to want the baby. Deal with the attitude that would allow her to
take away that which she cannot give.

Some women argue that the man does not have the baby and will not be
responsible for the baby after it is born, therefore it is all right to
kill the baby. Again the logic is off. The premise is that the man is irresponsible.

If that is the problem, then deal with making him responsible. Deal
with what you are dealing with, not with the weak, innocent and unprotected
baby. The essence of Jesus' message dealt with this very problem -- the
problem of the inner attitude and motivation of a person. "If in your heart
. . ." was his central message. The actual abortion (effect) is merely
the logical conclusion of a prior attitude (cause) that one has toward
life itself. Deal with the cause not merely the effect when abortion is
the issue.

Some of the most dangerous arguments for abortion stem from popular judgments
about life's ultimate meaning, but the logical conclusion of their position
is never pursued. Some people may, unconsciously, operate their lives as
if pleasure is life's highest good, and pain and suffering man's greatest
enemy. That position, if followed to its logical conclusion, means that
that which prohibits pleasure should be done away with by whatever means
are necessary. By the same rationale, whatever means are necessary should
be used to prevent suffering and pain. My position is not to negate pleasure
nor elevate suffering, but merely to argue against their being elevated
to an ultimate end of life. Because if they are so elevated, anything,
including murder and genocide, can be carried out in their name.

Often people who analyze and operate In the public sphere (some sociologists,
doctors, politicians, etc.) are especially prone to argue in these ways.
Sociologists argue for - population control on the basis of a shortage
of housing, food, space, etc. I raise two issues at this point: (1) It
is strange that they choose to start talking about population control at
the same time that Black people in America and people of color around the
world are demanding their rightful place as human citizens and their rightful
share of the material wealth in the world. (2) People of color are for
the most part powerless with regard to decisions made about population
control. Given the history of people of color in the modern world we have
no reason to assume that whites are going to look out for our best interests.

Politicians argue for abortion largely because they do not want to spend
the necessary money to feed, clothe and educate more people. Here arguments
for in-convenience and economic savings take precedence over arguments
for human value and human life. I read recently where a politician from
New York was justifying abortion because they had prevented 10,000 welfare
babies from being born and saved the state $15 million. In my mind serious
moral questions arise when politicians are willing to pay welfare mothers
between $300 to $1000 to have an abortion, but will not pay $30 for a hot
school lunch program to the already born children of these same mothers.

I think the economic objections are not valid today because we are confronted
with a whole new economic problem. The basic and historic economic problem
has been the inability to feed everyone in the world even If the will were
there to do so. They could not produce enough to do the job even if they
wanted to. An agrarian and disconnected world did not possess the ability
to solve the basic economic problem. That was tragic, but hardly morally
reprehensible. Today. however, we do not have the same economic problem.
Our world is basically urban, industrial, interconnected, and technological
so that we now, generally speaking, have the ability to feed the peoples
of the world but lack the political and economic will to do so. That would
require basic shifts of economic and political power in the world and.
we are not willing to pay that price -- the price of justice. The problem
now is not the ability to produce but the ability to distribute justly.

Psychiatrists, social workers and doctors often argue for abortion on
the basis that the child will grow up mentally and emotionally scared.
But who of us is complete? If incompleteness were the criteria for taking
life we would all be dead. If you can justify abortion on the basis of
emotional incompleteness then your logic could also lead you to killing
for other forms of incompleteness -- blindness, crippleness, old age. (How we respect life is the over-riding moral issue:Right to Life News, January 1977)

Yes, Jesse, "incompleteness" could lead people of color to kill those whom they have been taught by professional race-baiters to hate and blame for their personal problems. And your support for contraception, Jesse, is offensive to God in se as it denies His Sovereignty over the sanctity and fecundity of marriage, which he has ordained for the propagation and education of children, education, by the way, which is to be supervised by the parents and not by your pal Obama/Soetoro's 'common core" curriculum (see Common Core: From Luther To Mann To Bismarck To Obama). "Family planning" is not only offensive to God. It is injurious to men and their temporal and eternal good (see Forty-Three Years After Humanae Vitae, Always Trying To Find A Way and Planting Seeds of Revolutionary Change).

Jesse Louis Jackson got "inoculated," if you will, from all such talk in the 1983-1984 Democratic Party presidential cycle as he made surprisingly strong showings against former Vice President of the United States Walter F. Mondale (D-Minnesota) and United States Senator Gary Hart (D-Colorado), later to have some difficulties in his 1987 run for the 1988 Democratic Party presidential nomination because of "monkey business" of some sort. Jesse Jackson got the presidential bug, and that is what killed the integrity that he had once demonstrated on the life issue.

Then again, why should Jesse Louis Jackson be concerned about personal integrity when the integrit of the true Faith, about which he knows nothing, has been under attack by the conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" for well-neigh five and one-half decades now.

The very men who should have been speaking to the world about the necessity of seeking to restore the Social Reign of Christ the King and of Mary our Immaculate Queen have made their "reconciliation" with the falsehoods of Protestantism and Judeo-Masonry, thereby becoming active accomplices in the degeneration of the world around us by the daily offenses they have committed against the integrity of the Sacred Deposit of Faith and their sacramentally barren liturgical rites.

The conciliar "popes" and their "bishops" and many of their clergy and professed religious have blasphemed God by personally esteeming the symbols of false religions, by treating the "clergy" of such religions as having a mission from God to serve Him and by entering into the temples of false worship that they call "sacred' and in which they are content to be treated as inferiors. They have promulgated false doctrines aplenty and instituted revolutionary pastoral practices that have robbed most Catholics worldwide of even a modicum of the sensus fidei, which is why they are happy participants in the evils protected under cover of the civil law and promoted with abandon in what passes for "popular culture."

Yet it is that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis does not believe that it is necessary, prudent or advisable to speak about abortion because Catholics supposedly "know" that it is wrong, stressing that this is the time for "mercy":

Patricia Zorzan:
Speaking on behalf of Brazilians. The society has changed, young people
have changed, and we see many young people in Brazil. You have spoken
to us about abortion, matrimony between persons of the same gender. In
Brazil a law has been approved which extends the right of abortion and
has allowed matrimony between persons of the same gender. Why didn’t you
speak about this? [Repeated in Italian]

Francis: The Church has already expressed herself
perfectly on this. It wasn’t necessary to go back to this, nor did I
speak about fraud or lies or other things, on which the Church has a
clear doctrine.[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: But it’s an issue that interests young people…

[Repeated in Italian]

Francis: Yes, but it wasn’t
necessary to talk about that, but about positive things that open the
way to youngsters, isn’t that so? Moreover, young people know perfectly
well what the position of the Church is.

[Repeated in Italian]

Patricia Zorzan: What is the position of Your Holiness, can you tell us?

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis is not a child of the Catholic Church. He is a son of perdition who refuses to teach simple moral truths by asserting gratuitously that there is no "need" to do so because young Catholics know all about them.

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis's gratuitously and completely fallacious belief that young Catholics "know" Church teaching obscures the fact that a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter would understand that he has an obligation to speak to the entire world, that upon his immortal soul is the solemn responsibility to see to it that the Gospel of Christ the King is preached and that errors and moral evils are denounced in no uncertain terms. That Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis refuses to do this for the sake of emphasizing his Marxist view of "serving the poor" by means of statist programs that reduce both the poor and everyone to the status of the slaves of the caesars and their administrative minions while seeking to restrict their legitimate "liberties" is yet another sign that he is does not belong to the bosom of Holy Mother Church and that he is not a true and legitimate Successor of Saint Peter.

True popes have never hesitated to denounce evils as the circumstances required to do so, and the circumstances of the late Eighteenth, Nineteenth and early to middle Twentieth Centuries saw a continuous train of popes from Pope Pius VI through Pope Pius XII do precisely that.

Pope Pius VI condemned the forces of liberalism at work in the work in his first encyclical letter, Inscrutabile, December 25, 1775.

You yourselves, established as scouts in the house of
Israel, see clearly the many victories claimed by a philosophy full of
deceit. You see the ease with which it attracts to itself a great host
of peoples, concealing its impiety with the honorable name of
philosophy. Who could express in words or call to mind the wickedness of
the tenets and evil madness which it imparts? While such men apparently
intend to search out wisdom, "they fail because they do not search in
the proper way. . . and they fall into errors which lead them astray
from ordinary wisdom." They have come to such a height of impiety that
they make out that God does not exist, or if He does that He is idle and
uncaring, making no revelation to men. Consequently it is not
surprising that they assert that everything holy and divine is the
product of the minds of inexperienced men smitten with empty fear of the
future and seduced by a vain hope of immortality. But those deceitful
sages soften and conceal the wickedness of their doctrine with seductive
words and statements; in this way, they attract and wretchedly ensnare
many of the weak into rejecting their faith or allowing it to be greatly
shaken. While they pursue a remarkable knowledge, they open their eyes
to behold a false light which is worse than the very darkness. Naturally
our enemy, desirous of harming us and skilled in doing so, just as he
made use of the serpent to deceive the first human beings, has armed the
tongues of those men with the poison of his deceitfulness in order to
lead astray the minds of the faithful. The prophet prays that his soul
may be delivered from such deceitful tongues. In this way these men by
their speech "enter in lowliness, capture mildly, softly bind and kill
in secret." This results in great moral corruption, in license of
thought and speech, in arrogance and rashness in every enterprise.

When they have spread this darkness abroad and torn
religion out of men's hearts, these accursed philosophers proceed to
destroy the bonds of union among men, both those which unite them to
their rulers, and those which urge them to their duty. They keep
proclaiming that man is born free and subject to no one, that society
accordingly is a crowd of foolish men who stupidly yield to priests who
deceive them and to kings who oppress them, so that the harmony of
priest and ruler is only a monstrous conspiracy against the innate
liberty of man.

Everyone must understand that such ravings and
others like them, concealed in many deceitful guises, cause greater ruin
to public calm the longer their impious originators are unrestrained. They
cause a serious loss of souls redeemed by Christ's blood wherever their
teaching spreads, like a cancer; it forces its way into public
academies, into the houses of the great, into the palaces of kings, and
even enters the sanctuary, shocking as it is to say so. (Pope Pius VI, Inscrutabile, December 25, 1775.)

Pope Pius VII condemned the concept of "religious liberty" that has made possible the triumph of practical atheism as the lowest common denominator and thus of a return to the tribalism and barbarism by which the innocent lives of the preborn and all human beings after birth, including young Chris Lane from Australia, are subject to summary execution by whichever mob considers them to be "responsible" for their problems or simply because they are "bored" despite a proliferation of gizmos and gadgets to keep them "amused":

The Catholic Church: For how can We tolerate with equanimity that the
Catholic religion, which France received in the first ages of the
Church, which was confirmed in that very kingdom by the blood of so many
most valiant martyrs, which by far the greatest part of the French race
professes, and indeed bravely and constantly defended even among the
most grave adversities and persecutions and dangers of recent years, and
which, finally, that very dynasty to which the designated king belongs
both professes and has defended with much zeal - that this Catholic,
this most holy religion, We say, should not only not be declared to be
the only one in the whole of France supported by the bulwark of the laws
and by the authority of the Government, but should even, in the very
restoration of the monarchy, be entirely passed over? But a much more
grave, and indeed very bitter, sorrow increased in Our heart - a sorrow
by which We confess that We were crushed, overwhelmed and torn in two -
from the twenty-second article of the constitution in which We saw, not
only that "liberty of religion and of conscience" (to use the same words
found in the article) were permitted by the force of the constitution,
but also that assistance and patronage were promised both to this
liberty and also to the ministers of these different forms of
"religion". There is certainly no need of many words, in addressing you,
to make you fully recognize by how lethal a wound the Catholic religion
in France is struck by this article. For when the liberty of all
"religions" is indiscriminately asserted, by this very fact truth is
confounded with error and the holy and immaculate Spouse of Christ, the
Church, outside of which there can be no salvation, is set on a par with
the sects of heretics and with Judaic perfidy itself. For when
favour and patronage is promised even to the sects of heretics and their
ministers, not only their persons, but also their very errors, are
tolerated and fostered: a system of errors in which is contained that
fatal and never sufficiently to be deplored HERESY which, as St.
Augustine says (de Haeresibus, no.72), "asserts that all heretics
proceed correctly and tell the truth: which is so absurd that it seems
incredible to me." (Pope Pius VII, Post Tam Diuturnas, April 29, 1814.)

Pope Leo XII condemned Freemasonry in no uncertain terms:

Likewise We look with solicitude, by Our Special Prayer and encouragements, upon
you all, O Beloved Sons, who profess the Catholic Religion. Avoid entirely men
who consider light darkness, and darkness light. For what utility worthy of the
name can arise from agreement with men who think that no consideration for God,
no consideration for the more Sublime Powers, is needing to be had, who through
intrigues and secret assemblies try to declare war on those things, and who are
such that they cry even in public and everywhere that they are the greatest
lovers of the public good, of the Church, and of society; nevertheless they have
already declared by all their deeds that they wish to throw all things into
disorder and to overturn all things. These are indeed similar to those men to
whom John commands in his second Epistle (v. 10) that neither hospitality must
be given no "God speed" be said, and whom our Fathers do not hesitate to call
the firstborn of the devil. Beware therefore of their flatteries and of their
discourses sweetened with honey, by which they will seduce you to enroll in
those sects to which they have been admitted. Have it for certain that no one
can be a member of those sects, without being guilty of the most serious
disgraceful act; and drive away from your ears the words of those who vigorously
declare that you may assent to your election to the lower degrees of their
sects, that nothing is admitted in those degrees which is opposed to reason,
nothing which is opposed to Religion, indeed that there is nothing proclaimed,
nothing performed which is not Holy, which is not Right, which is not Undefiled.
Truly that abominable oath, which has already been mentioned, and which must be
sworn even in that lower echelon, is sufficient for you to understand that it is
contrary to Divine Law to be enlisted in those lower degrees, and to remain in
them. In the next place, although they are not accustomed to commit those things
which are more serious and more criminal to those who have not attained to the
higher degrees, nevertheless it is plainly evident that the force and boldness
of those most pernicious societies grow on account of the unanimity and the
multitude of all who enroll in them. Therefore, even those who have not passed
beyond the inferior degrees, must be considered sharers of their crimes. And
that passage of the Apostle to the Romans (ch. 1) applies to them: "They who do
such things, but also those who consent to those doing them." (Pope Leo XII, Quo Graviora, March 13, 1826.)

Pope Pius VII condemned nascent Modernist efforts to incorporate the principles of the liberal revolutions into the Faith itself, efforts that were to bear their rotten fruit at the "Second" Vatican Council fifty years ago that Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis dares to conjoin with a commemoration of the ninety-sixth anniversary of the Miracle of the Sun on October 13, 1917:

3. Although God may console Us with you, We are nonetheless sad. This is due
to the numberless errors and the teachings of perverse doctrines which, no
longer secretly and clandestinely but openly and vigorously, attack the Catholic
faith. You know how evil men have raised the standard of revolt against religion
through philosophy (of which they proclaim themselves doctors) and through empty
fallacies devised according to natural reason. In the first place, the Roman See
is assailed and the bonds of unity are, every day, being severed. The authority
of the Church is weakened and the protectors of things sacred are snatched away
and held in contempt. The holy precepts are despised, the celebration of divine
offices is ridiculed, and the worship of God is cursed by the sinner.[1] All
things which concern religion are relegated to the fables of old women and the
superstitions of priests. Truly lions have roared in Israel.[2] With tears We
say: "Truly they have conspired against the Lord and against His Christ." Truly
the impious have said: "Raze it, raze it down to its foundations."[3]

4. Among these heresies belongs that foul contrivance of the sophists of this
age who do not admit any difference among the different professions of faith and
who think that the portal of eternal salvation opens for all from any religion.
They, therefore, label with the stigma of levity and stupidity those who, having
abandoned the religion which they learned, embrace another of any kind, even
Catholicism. This is certainly a monstrous impiety which assigns the same praise
and the mark of the just and upright man to truth and to error, to virtue and to
vice, to goodness and to turpitude. Indeed this deadly idea concerning the lack
of difference among religions is refuted even by the light of natural reason. We
are assured of this because the various religions do not often agree among
themselves. If one is true, the other must be false; there can be no society of
darkness with light. Against these experienced sophists the people must be
taught that the profession of the Catholic faith is uniquely true, as the
apostle proclaims: one Lord, one faith, one baptism.[4] Jerome used to say it
this way: he who eats the lamb outside this house will perish as did those
during the flood who were not with Noah in the ark.[5] Indeed, no other name
than the name of Jesus is given to men, by which they may be saved.[6] He who
believes shall be saved; he who does not believe shall be condemned.[7]

5. We must also be wary of those who publish the Bible with new
interpretations contrary to the Church's laws. They skillfully distort the
meaning by their own interpretation. They print the Bibles in the vernacular
and, absorbing an incredible expense, offer them free even to the uneducated.
Furthermore, the Bibles are rarely without perverse little inserts to insure
that the reader imbibes their lethal poison instead of the saving water of
salvation. Long ago the Apostolic See warned about this serious hazard to the
faith and drew up a list of the authors of these pernicious notions. The rules
of this Index were published by the Council of Trent;[8] the ordinance required
that translations of the Bible into the vernacular not be permitted without the
approval of the Apostolic See and further required that they be published with
commentaries from the Fathers. The sacred Synod of Trent had decreed[9] in order
to restrain impudent characters, that no one, relying on his own prudence in
matters of faith and of conduct which concerns Christian doctrine, might twist
the sacred Scriptures to his own opinion, or to an opinion contrary to that of
the Church or the popes. Though such machinations against the Catholic faith had
been assailed long ago by these canonical proscriptions, Our recent predecessors
made a special effort to check these spreading evils.[10] With these arms may
you too strive to fight the battles of the Lord which endanger the sacred
teachings, lest this deadly virus spread in your flock.

6. When this corruption has been abolished, then eradicate those secret
societies of factious men who, completely opposed to God and to princes, are
wholly dedicated to bringing about the fall of the Church, the destruction of
kingdoms, and disorder in the whole world. Having cast off the restraints of
true religion, they prepare the way for shameful crimes. Indeed, because they
concealed their societies, they aroused suspicion of their evil intent.
Afterwards this evil intention broke forth, about to assail the sacred and the
civil orders. Hence the supreme pontiffs, Our predecessors, Clement XII,
Benedict XIV, Pius VII, Leo XII,[11] repeatedly condemned with anathema that
kind of secret society. Our predecessors condemned them in apostolic letters; We
confirm those commands and order that they be observed exactly. In this matter
We shall be diligent lest the Church and the state suffer harm from the
machinations of such sects. With your help We strenuously take up the mission of
destroying the strongholds which the putrid impiety of evil men sets up. (Pope Pius VIII, Traditii Humiliati Nostrae, May 24, 1829.)

Pope Pius IX condemned numerous modern errors, cataloguing them in The Syllabus of Errors, December 8, 1864, the same day that he issued Quanta Cura in which he denounced the naturalistic view of the civil state that makes possible the recrudescence of tribalism and barbarism:

For you well know, venerable brethren, that at this
time men are found not a few who, applying to civil society the impious
and absurd principle of "naturalism," as they call it, dare to teach
that "the best constitution of public society and (also) civil progress
altogether require that human society be conducted and governed without
regard being had to religion any more than if it did not exist; or, at
least, without any distinction being made between the true religion and
false ones." And, against the doctrine of Scripture, of the Church, and
of the Holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that "that is the
best condition of civil society, in which no duty is recognized, as
attached to the civil power, of restraining by enacted penalties,
offenders against the Catholic religion, except so far as public peace
may require." From which totally false idea of social government they do
not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, most fatal in its effects on
the Catholic Church and the salvation of souls, called by Our
Predecessor, Gregory XVI, an "insanity," viz., that "liberty of
conscience and worship is each man's personal right, which ought to be
legally proclaimed and asserted in every rightly constituted society;
and that a right resides in the citizens to an absolute liberty, which
should be restrained by no authority whether ecclesiastical or civil,
whereby they may be able openly and publicly to manifest and declare any
of their ideas whatever, either by word of mouth, by the press, or in
any other way." But, while they rashly affirm this, they do not
think and consider that they are preaching "liberty of perdition;" and
that "if human arguments are always allowed free room for discussion,
there will never be wanting men who will dare to resist truth, and to
trust in the flowing speech of human wisdom; whereas we know, from the
very teaching of our Lord Jesus Christ, how carefully Christian faith
and wisdom should avoid this most injurious babbling."

And, since where religion has been removed
from civil society, and the doctrine and authority of divine revelation
repudiated, the genuine notion itself of justice and human right is
darkened and lost, and the place of true justice and legitimate right is
supplied by material force, thence it appears why it is that some,
utterly neglecting and disregarding the surest principles of sound
reason, dare to proclaim that "the people's will, manifested by what is
called public opinion or in some other way, constitutes a supreme law,
free from all divine and human control; and that in the political order
accomplished facts, from the very circumstance that they are
accomplished, have the force of right." But who, does not see
and clearly perceive that human society, when set loose from the bonds
of religion and true justice, can have, in truth, no other end than the
purpose of obtaining and amassing wealth, and that (society under such
circumstances) follows no other law in its actions, except the
unchastened desire of ministering to its own pleasure and interests?"
(Pope Pius IX, Quanta Cura, December 8, 1864.)

Pope Leo XIII used his nearly quarter of a century on the Throne of Saint Peter to denounce numerous errors, including communism, socialism, nihilism, liberalism, religious indifferentism, religious liberty and separation of Church and State. He used Arcanum, February 10, 1880, to defend the Sacrament of Holy Matrimony that Freemasons sought to destabilize, thus helping to set the stage for its complete perversion today:

Truly, it is hardly possible to describe how great are the evils that flow from divorce. Matrimonial
contracts are by it made variable; mutual kindness is weakened;
deplorable inducements to unfaithfulness are supplied; harm is done to
the education and training of children; occasion is afforded for the
breaking up of homes; the seeds of dissension are sown among families;
the dignity of womanhood is lessened and brought low, and women run the
risk of being deserted after having ministered to the pleasures of men.
Since, then, nothing has such power to lay waste families and destroy
the mainstay of kingdoms as the corruption of morals, it is easily seen
that divorces are in the highest degree hostile to the prosperity of
families and States, springing as they do from the depraved morals of
the people, and, as experience shows us, opening out a way to every kind
of evil-doing in public and in private life.

Further still, if the matter be duly pondered, we
shall clearly see these evils to be the more especially dangerous,
because, divorce once being tolerated, there will be no restraint
powerful enough to keep it within the bounds marked out or presurmised. Great
indeed is the force of example, and even greater still the might of
passion. With such incitements it must needs follow that the eagerness
for divorce, daily spreading by devious ways, will seize upon the minds
of many like a virulent contagious disease, or like a flood of water
bursting through every barrier. These are truths that doubtlessly are
all clear in themselves, but they will become clearer yet if we call to
mind the teachings of experience. So soon as the road to divorce began
to be made smooth by law, at once quarrels, jealousies, and judicial
separations largely increased: and such shamelessness of life followed
that men who had been in favor of these divorces repented of what they
had done, and feared that, if they did not carefully seek a remedy by
repealing the law, the State itself might come to ruin. The
Romans of old are said to have shrunk with horror from the first example
of divorce, but ere long all sense of decency was blunted in their
soul; the meager restraint of passion died out, and the marriage vow was
so often broken that what some writers have affirmed would seem to be
true -- namely, women used to reckon years not by the change of consuls,
but of their husbands. In like manner, at the beginning, Protestants
allowed legalized divorces in certain although but few cases, and yet
from the affinity of circumstances of like kind, the number of divorces
increased to such extent in Germany, America, and elsewhere that all
wise thinkers deplored the boundless corruption of morals, and judged
the recklessness of the laws to be simply intolerable.

Even in Catholic States the evil existed. For
whenever at any time divorce was introduced, the abundance of misery
that followed far exceeded all that the framers of the law could have
foreseen. In fact, many lent their minds to contrive all kinds of fraud
and device, and by accusations of cruelty, violence, and adultery to
feign grounds for the dissolution of the matrimonial bond of which they
had grown weary; and all this with so great havoc to morals that an
amendment of the laws was deemed to be urgently needed.

Can anyone, therefore, doubt that laws in favor of
divorce would have a result equally baneful and calamitous were they to
be passed in these our days? There exists not, indeed, in the projects
and enactments of men any power to change the character and tendency
with things have received from nature. Those men, therefore,
show but little wisdom in the idea they have formed of the well-being of
the commonwealth who think that the inherent character of marriage can
be perverted with impunity; and who, disregarding the sanctity of
religion and of the sacrament, seem to wish to degrade and dishonor
marriage more basely than was done even by heathen laws. Indeed, if they
do not change their views, not only private families, but all public
society, will have unceasing cause to fear lest they should be miserably
driven into that general confusion and overthrow of order which is even
now the wicked aim of socialists and communists. Thus we see most
clearly how foolish and senseless it is to expect any public good from
divorce, when, on the contrary, it tends to the certain destruction of
society. (Pope Leo XIII, Arcanum, February 10, 1890.)

Pope Leo XIII condemned the efforts of Freemasons to inculcate the youth of the world in the ways of naturalism and immorality by means of the rot that is public schooling and the promotion of indecency in stage-plays and supposed works of art:

Wherefore we see that men are publicly tempted by
the many allurements of pleasure; that there are journals and pamphlets
with neither moderation nor shame; that stage-plays are remarkable for
license; that designs for works of art are shamelessly sought in the
laws of a so-called verism; that the contrivances of a soft and delicate
life are most carefully devised; and that all the blandishments of
pleasure are diligently sought out by which virtue may be lulled to
sleep. Wickedly, also, but at the same time quite consistently, do those
act who do away with the expectation of the joys of heaven, and bring
down all happiness to the level of mortality, and, as it were, sink it
in the earth. Of what We have said the following fact, astonishing not
so much in itself as in its open expression, may serve as a
confirmation. For, since generally no one is accustomed to obey crafty
and clever men so submissively as those whose soul is weakened and
broken down by the domination of the passions, there have been in the
sect of the Freemasons some who have plainly determined and proposed
that, artfully and of set purpose, the multitude should be satiated with
a boundless license of vice, as, when this had been done, it would
easily come under their power and authority for any acts of daring. . . .

With
the greatest unanimity the sect of the Freemasons also endeavors to
take to itself the education of youth. They think that they can easily
mold to their opinions that soft and pliant age, and bend it whither
they will; and that nothing can be more fitted than this to enable them
to bring up the youth of the State after their own plan. Therefore, in
the education and instruction of children they allow no share, either of
teaching or of discipline, to the ministers of the Church; and in many
places they have procured that the education of youth shall be
exclusively in the hands of laymen, and that nothing which treats of the
most important and most holy duties of men to God shall be introduced
into the instructions on morals. (Pope Leo XIII, Humanum Genus, April 20, 1884)

The young men who shot Chris Lane in the back were "schooled" in the ways of barbarism and tribalism from the time of their infancy. They are the ultimate end products of the revolution wrought by Martin Luther and institutionalized by the organized forces of naturalism and revolution that can be termed as Judeo-Masonry.

Pope Leo XIII explained in but one concise sentence the very proximate origins of modern evils:

But that harmful and deplorable passion for innovation which was aroused
in the sixteenth century threw first of all into confusion the
Christian religion, and next, by natural sequence, invaded the
precincts of philosophy, whence it spread amongst all classes of
society. From this source, as from a fountain-head, burst forth all
those later tenets of unbridled license which, in the midst of the
terrible upheavals of the last century, were wildly conceived and boldly
proclaimed as the principles and foundation of that new conception of
law which was not merely previously unknown, but was at variance on many
points with not only the Christian, but even the natural law. (Pope Leo XIII, Immortale Dei, November 1, 1885.)

This is why, as Pope Leo XIII in Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900, "public life is stained with crime":

Once the idea of the authority of God as the Judge of right and
wrong is forgotten, law must necessarily lose its primary authority and
justice must perish: and these are the two most powerful and most
necessary bonds of society. Similarly, once the hope and expectation of
eternal happiness is taken away, temporal goods will be greedily sought
after. Every man will strive to secure the largest share for himself.
Hence arise envy, jealousy, hatred. The consequences are conspiracy,
anarchy, nihilism. There is neither peace abroad nor security at home.
Public life is stained with crime. (Pope Leo XIII, Tametsi Futura Prospicientibus, November 1, 1900.)

Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis and the lords of his counterfeit church of conciliarism believe that such firm denunciations of error and heresy have no place in their delusional world of "mercy" that has given rise to the combined mercilessness of barbarism and statism

Quite in contrast to the current universal public face of apostasy, Pope Pius XI did not presume that Catholics knew moral truths. He reiterated those truths, and he condemned those in public life who supported the direct, intentional taking of innocent human life in the womb:

Those who hold the reins of government should not forget that it is the
duty of public authority by appropriate laws and sanctions to defend the
lives of the innocent, and this all the more so since those whose lives
are endangered and assailed cannot defend themselves. Among whom we
must mention in the first place infants hidden in the mother's womb. And
if the public magistrates not only do not defend them, but by their
laws and ordinances betray them to death at the hands of doctors or of
others, let them remember that God is the Judge and Avenger of innocent
blood which cried from earth to Heaven. (Pope Pius XI, Casti Connubii, December 30, 1930.)

Saint Louis IX, King of France, whose feast is commemorated today, Sunday, August 25, 2013, the Fourteenth Sunday after Pentecost, exemplified the Social Reign of Christ the King Whose doctrine is rejected and spat upon both by the lords of Modernity in the world and of Modernism in the counterfeit church of conciliarism, was a protector of true liberty for the people entrusted to his royal care. He understood that he had to rule according to the Mind of Christ the King, realizing that everything he said and did would be scrutinized by his Divine Judge at the moment of his Particular Judgment.

Having learned from the knee of his saintly mother, Blessed Blanche of Castille, to love God and to hate Mortal Sin, including blasphemy and heresy, Saint Louis IX heard two Masses a day, spent much time before the Blessed Sacrament in prayer, listened to the chant of the Divine Office by monks, supported the work of the Franciscans in their service to the poor and the Dominicans in the establishment and spread of their educational and preaching missions, and was a zealous crusader to seek to recover the Holy Land for Christ the King and His Most Blessed Mother, to whom he was so very tenderly devoted.

Saint Louis IX had institutions of mercy built to care for the sick, the abandoned and for orphans. His administration of justice gave no quarter to either rich or poor, although he treated the latter with special compassion and mercy until he was certain of the facts in a particular case, most of which were brought to him as he sat under a tree and listened to the entreaties of his subjects. The sort of rampant violence and statism extant in the world today was unthinkable under the likes of Saint Louis IX, whose portrait, believe it or not, is displayed on the ceiling of the United States Senate's chamber, where much evil has been advanced.

It is wise to consider the excerpt from Archbishop Jacobus de Vorgaine's The Golden Legend on the sanctity of this great exemplar of Christ the King:

And howbeit that to all indigent he opened the bosom of misericorde, nevertheless to them that watched in divine services, and that prayed for souls, he made greater alms and ofter. And by the great alms that he dealt every year to the convents in Paris, both of the friars predicators [preaching friars, Dominicans] and minors [Franciscans], said sometime to his familiars: O God, how this alms is well set or bestowed on so much and so great number of friars affluing and coming to Paris out from all lands for to learn the divine scriptures, and to the end they might show and utter them through all the world to the cure and salvation of souls.

Other alms that he did through the year, no tongue should suffice for to rehearse it.
He worshipped the holy relics with much great devotion, and assiduously grew the cultiving of God and the honour of the saints. He builded in Paris a fair chapel within the palace royal, in which he purposed and put right diligently the holy crown of thorns of our Lord, with a great part of the holy cross. Also the iron or head of the spear wherewith the side of our Lord was opened, with many other relics which he received of the emperor of Constantinople.

He would speak to nobody while that he was at church hearing the divine service, without it were for great need or great utility of the commonweal, and then with short and substantious words uttered that he would say, to the end that his devotion should not be letted [hindered]. He might not hear, ne forbear the reproaches or blasphemies done to the Christian faith, but he, enamoured of the love of God, as Phineas, punished them right grievously.

Whereof it befell that a citizen of Paris who loathly swearing had blasphemed Jesus
Christ, against the act or statute royal, which St. Louis by the counsel of the prelates and princes had ordained and made for the swearers and blasphemers, at the commandment of the said saint he was marked or tokened, at the lips of him with a hot and burning iron, in sign of punition of his sin, and terror and dreadfulness to all others. And how for cause of that, he hearing some say and cast in on him many cursings, said: I would fain sustain on my lips such laidure or shame as long as I shall live, so that all the evil vice of swearing were left and cast out from all our realm.

He had the signacle or figure of the holy cross in so great reverence that he eschewed to tread on it, and required of many religious that, within their churchyard and tombs they ne should from thence forthon portray ne depict the form o
r figure of the cross and that the crosses so portrayed and figured, they should make to be planed. O how great reverence he had! He also went every year on the good Friday to the chapel within the palace royal for to worship there the holy cross, kneeling, both feet and head bare.

Of diligent discussing of causes and matters he rendered or yielded just judgment. Of very dilection or love, he doubting that the strife, actions, and pleadings of the poor should come only to the presence and knowledge of his councillors, he went and presided among them at the least twice in a week for to hear the plaints [complaints] which lightly he made to be discussed and soon after justly urged. He stablished also, for to have away the burning covetise of the usurers, that no justicer should compel ne constrain them that were bounden to the Jews or to other public usurers by letters, ne by none other manner, to pay or yield to them their usury or growing. (Jacobus de Voragine, O.P., The Golden Legend: the Life of Saint Louis IX, King of France.)

Saint Louis IX did more than "frown" upon evil the way that Jesse Jackson and Jorge Mario Bergoglio/Francis do. He condemned evil, fought it and punished it, sometimes excessively, to be sure, and led armies in battle against it. We must imitate his holy virtues to help us to love God and to reject all that is opposed to His greater honor and glory and majesty.

We must grow in love more and more with God as He has revealed Himself through His true Church.

We must come to hate our sins more.

We must do more voluntary penances for our sins and those of the whole world.

We need to be more attentive to the needs of the members of the Church Suffering in Purgatory.

We must pray to Our Lady to have more apostolic zeal for the salvation of souls, seeking to distribute Green Scapulars to those whom God's Holy Providence places in our paths each day. We will live for the Faith, not for the passing things of this world.

We must blaze paths for Christ the King as His consecrated slaves through the Sorrowful and Immaculate Heart of Mary, never fearing the onslaughts of the figures of Antichrist that walk amongst us as long as we pray the Holy Rosary every day as well as to wear and to fulfill the conditions associated with the Brown Scapular of Our Lady of Mount Carmel.

May Our Blessed Lord and Saviour not frown us at the moment of our own Particular Judgment for refusing to love God as He has revealed Himself exclusively through His true Church.